ORESTES AND HAMLET From Myth to Masterpiece: Part I Earl Showerman ❦ And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek, From thence to honour thee, I would not seek For names; but call forth thund’ring Aeschylus, Euripedes and Sophocles to us . To the memory of my beloved, The AUTHOR, Mr. William Shakespeare, And what he hath left us, Ben Jonson ANY have commented on the classical themes and allusions in the poems and plays attributed to William Shakespeare. Hamlet is rife with easily identifiable classical sources, reflected in language, plot, metaphor, and Mlallusion. A close look may even reveal that Hamlet derives as much from Greek myth and Roman history as it does from the universally accepted primary source, the Danish legend of Amleth (Amlodi) as reported in the late twelfth century by Saxo the Grammarian and later by the Frenchman, Belleforest. Hamlet’s dramatic power owes much to its author’s deep knowledge of Homer’s epics and the Greek tragedians. The themes of royal assassination, inherited fate, intergenerational murder, incest, adultery, tainted food and wine, ghostly visitation, and violated sanctuary and bur- ial rites permeate the stories of Hesiod, Pindar, Homer, Aeschylus’s Oresteia, and the tragedies of Euripides and Sophocles. Further, Hamlet’s classical roots seem to extend beyond mythic drama, extended by allusions to the corrupted Roman emperors Claudius and Nero. Hamlet may be a Dane, and Saxo’s Latin or Belleforest’s French his first source, but his story has such a variety of clas- sical elements that earlier sources of this Elizabethan masterpiece must be considered. In the annual Shakespeare lecture to the British Academy of 1914, published as Hamlet and Orestes: A Study in Traditional Types, Gilbert Murray explored the remarkable similarities in the Oresteia, Saxo’s Amlodi, and Hamlet. He identifies two interesting aspects in these comparisons: There are first the broad similarities of situation between what we may call the origi- nal sagas on both sides; that is the general story of Orestes and Hamlet respectively. But secondly, there is something much more remarkable; when these sagas were worked up into tragedies, quite independently and on very different lines, by great dramatists of Greece and England, not only do most of the old similarities remain, but a number of new similarities are developed. That is Aeschylus, Euripides, and Shakespeare are strikingly similar in certain points which do not occur at all in Saxo or Ambales or the Greek epic. (14) 89 THE OXFORDIAN Volume VII 2004 Earl Showerman Murray gives the example of the hero’s madness, which is the same in Euripides and Shakespeare, but very different from the Northern legend in Saxo or the later form of the same legend in the Icelandic Ambales Saga. He actually asks the question, “Did Shakespeare study these Greek tragedians directly?” To which question he must answer “no,” based on the opinion of “all critics”; although “of course it is likely enough that some of Shakespeare’s university friends, who knew Greek, may have told him in conversation of various stories or scenes or effects in Greek plays” (15). Murray further argues that Orestes shows no character development in Seneca’s Latin. Reverting to a proposed archetypal dramatic principle in tragedy, he asks: Are we thrown back, then, on a much broader and simpler though rather terrifying hypothesis, that the field of tragedy is by nature so limited that these similarities are inevitable? . I do not think that in itself it is enough to explain those close and detailed and fundamental similarities as those we are considering. [T]here must be a connection somewhere. (15) Hamlet and Orestes are perhaps even greater as tragic heroes because their dramas move through times of cultural liminality. Orestes’s generation is the last of the Age of Heroes, to be followed by what Hesiod called the Iron Age. No more would the Olympian gods walk the earth. Heroes transform into revered ancestors of noble families. Hamlet’s highly developed conscience, his moral philosophy, reflects a similar cultural transition. The medieval Great Chain of Being, codes of honor, and religious dogma were giving way to a heliocentric cosmos, the Renaissance, and the Reformation. Hamlet’s spiritual power arises from an Orestian root. Both these arche- typal tragic dramas succeed by addressing the ultimate anxieties of existence in an uncertain age. Shakespeare’s Greek: sources, words, themes and tropes In “Shakespeare’s ‘Lesse Greek,’” Andrew Werth reviews the evidence that, despite Ben Jonson’s dismissive phrase––“small Latin and lesse Greek”––the author of the Shakespeare canon Dr. Earl Showerman graduated with honors from Harvard College (1966) and the University of Michigan Medical School (1970). After post-graduate training at the University of Washington he served two years in the Indian Health Service as a medical officer in Crow Agency, MT. For over 25 years he practiced emergency medicine at Providence Medford Medical Center where he served as emergency department medical director for 13 years, as well as stints as the county EMS supervising physician and medical advisor to the hospital’s Center for Health Promotion. In 1986 he co-founded and now serves as president and medical editor for Epic Software Systems, Inc., an enterprise that provides over 300 hospitals and clinics with patient discharge instruction soft- ware. Since 1974 he has lived in close proximity to Ashland, OR, home of the world-famous Oregon Shake- speare Festival and, following his recent retirement, he has enrolled in courses in the Shakespeare Studies pro- gram at Southern Oregon University. He is a current board member of the Shakespeare Fellowship. In Part II of this article, to be published in the 2005 issue of THE OXFORDIAN, Showerman will, by examining the his- tory of the early Tudor interlude Horestes, pursue the experiential and literary evidence that connects Orestes to Hamlet and Shakespeare to the Earl of Oxford. 90 Orestes and Hamlet: From Myth to Masterpiece THE OXFORDIAN Volume VII 2004 had a solid knowledge of the Greek language and of classical literature, both Greek and Latin. J.A.K. Thomson’s Shakespeare and the Classics (3) and Michelle and Charles Martindale’s Shake- speare and the Uses of Antiquity are reviewed by Werth, who concludes that the goal of these authors was, apparently, “to place . limits on Shakespeare’s knowledge, proving thereby that because Shakespeare relied on a relatively small fund of classical knowledge, the plays were writ- ten largely by one man” (12). Although Thomson describes the Latin in Shakespeare as “formi- dable,” he must conclude that “Shakespeare was not a scholar” because “Greek was out of the question.” Similarly, the Martindales assert: Any Greek language Shakespeare had would not have been sufficient to allow him to read the extremely taxing poetry of the fifth century BC. Renaissance culture remained primarily Latin-based . Moreover, despite all efforts, no one has succeeded in producing one single piece of evidence from the plays to make any such debt certain, or even particularly likely. (41-2) This last statement is a flat untruth, as Werth and many others have shown in great detail, but where the truth isn’t palatable, one can always replace it with a flat untruth, uttered with the kind of emphasis one might give the truth had one the courage to pronounce it. While admit- ting that there are some unexpected allusions in Titus Andronicus to untranslated sources, among them Euripides’s Hecuba and the Ajax of Sophocles, both authors dismiss them as simply proof of Shakespeare’s mastery of Greek drama. Yet back when Shakespeare experts were classically trained themselves, George Stevens, a remarkable Shakespeare editor of the eighteenth century, held that the author must have read Ajax, and that Titus was “the work of one who was conversant with the Greek tragedies in their original language” (Thompson 58). Werth points out references to other untranslated Greek sources for Henry V1 Part 3 (Homer’s Iliad or Euripides’s Rhesus) and Timon of Athens (Lucian). “The Martindales surmise that Shakespeare might have seen Erasmus’s Latin translation, but Thompson notes that Shakespeare’s treatment of the material is devoid of the Latin feel we get, for example, in Julius Caesar, which is “studiously” Latinized” (14). Shakespeare’s inventiveness with language is exemplified in Hamlet where up to 600 new words or meanings have been noted by scholars. Werth identifies a number of these as deriving from classical Greek. These include: academe, critic, dialogue (as a verb), metamorphize, Olympian, pander, ode and mimic (15). Sonnets 153 and 154 about Cupid’s “heart-inflaming brand” pose a similar problem, since many traditional scholars, including Katherine Duncan- Jones, and A.L. Rowse, seem to agree that the source of both is the Greek Anthology, untrans- lated until the Latin version of Lubinus was published in 1603 in Heidelberg (16). EGARDING Shakespeare’s debt to Greek epic poetry, a leading authority on biblical allu- sions has asserted that “Shakespeare used many Homeric details not in Chapman,” whose Rtranslation of Seven Books from the Iliad was printed in 1598, with five more appearing in 1608. Scholars have also noted Shakespeare’s use of Homer in plays that include Troilus and 91 THE OXFORDIAN Volume VII 2004 Earl Showerman Cressida, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, As You Like It, and Comedy of Errors (19). In a 1960 arti- cle in the Shakespeare Newsletter, William Jones asserts that the name Laertes signals that the core drama of Hamlet concerns the relationship between fathers and sons. A careful check of Hamlet and the Odyssey reveals even more valid reasons for the use of the name Laertes.